rontilby wrote:Verified locations in the Maps App should persist regardless of the visibility settings that the member has chosen in the directory.

I don't agree. This is counter to the privacy the member wants. We have to respect the privacy desires of the members. I know this creates headaches for those who need the map data for their calling, but privacy trumps this need. Those who need mapping data for their calling will have to use some other method that does not violate member privacy.

jdlessley wrote:I don't agree. This is counter to the privacy the member wants. We have to respect the privacy desires of the members. I know this creates headaches for those who need the map data for their calling, but privacy trumps this need. Those who need mapping data for their calling will have to use some other method that does not violate member privacy.

I don't see why privacy settings should affect whether the location is verified. It's certainly reasonable that the "Show on Map" link in the Directory might not show up, depending on the privacy setting, and the marker on the actual map might similarly be affected.

But in the case at hand, the privacy setting has been set to "Ward" and it's a ward clerk who is making the change. It makes no sense at all for that privacy setting to affect what the ward clerk can do. This sounds more like a bug to me.

Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

If he's the ward clerk, it should remain visible - especially if the privacy settings are "Ward". So it should always be visible to him. So from his point of view, it should remain visible and verified.

Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

That thread discusses a bug that relates to "private" household profiles. I didn't think it applied to this situation, where the visibility is "Ward" -- not private. But as I think about it, I suppose it is plausible that any setting other than "stake" could be considered "private" in a sense, so the problem described in that thread could indeed apply to this thread.

Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.